Originally posted by zunxIntel virtualization is what is needed. Just switch betwen Mac OS X, Linux and Windows in real time. Freedom. Then millions will switch to Mac OS X for most of their taks.

On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).

With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.

Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).

Uhh, if everyone switches to Mac hardware and runs VPC with Windows, guess what? MS is selling everyone XP or Vista, maybe the Office apps for Windows and of course VPC. Yeah, they would go out of business.

MS doesn't get paid by the hourly usage of their apps. They get paid for sales. No matter how you or most of us around here feel about MS, they aren't going out of business anytime soon. Probably not in your lifetime. The sooner you start to enjoy what you use and quit worrying about the other stuff, the more satisfied with life you will be.

iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....

Originally posted by melgrossActually, there is every reason to believe it will.

VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.

On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.

Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.

why bother? they are just gonna port or rewrite it for universal binary. making it use the video card, direct x etc... would take effort and money and like most things, MS couldnt give a shit. People arnt buying it for games, people are spending 350 for business programs.

But even if they did, your still going to have preformance lose... and i wouldnt characterize it as "few percent"... if that was the case then why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows. Windows sucks. Running windows in another OS sucks worse. Running windows in another OS to run a game, sucks really bad.

Originally posted by mike12309why bother? they are just gonna port or rewrite it for universal binary. making it use the video card, direct x etc... would take effort and money and like most things, MS couldnt give a shit. People arnt buying it for games, people are spending 350 for business programs.

But even if they did, your still going to have preformance lose... and i wouldnt characterize it as "few percent"... if that was the case then why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows. Windows sucks. Running windows in another OS sucks worse. Running windows in another OS to run a game, sucks really bad.

I don't think they would do a Universal Binary of it. The underlying code is completely different. This is software that is tied closely to the architecture of the machine. That's why it won't even work in Rosetta.

I think they will allow the PPC version to molder, while they do a completely new one for x86, as they said they would have to.

Anyway, you don't know why people would buy this. On PPC, people couldn't use it for games, so they didn't. On x68, it's a different story.

Originally posted by melgrossI don't think they would do a Universal Binary of it. The underlying code is completely different. This is software that is tied closely to the architecture of the machine. That's why it won't even work in Rosetta.

I think they will allow the PPC version to molder, while they do a completely new one for x86, as they said they would have to.

Anyway, you don't know why people would buy this. On PPC, people couldn't use it for games, so they didn't. On x68, it's a different story.

if your right, its still an OS in another OS. and its still $350, so yes i can summarize few would buy this for games. Now whether people who buy it for business will use it for games as well, thats a given, knowing business people.

The only people i know that spend 350 for a single component to help play games are people like me... and for an expensive video card for their PC.

Originally posted by sunilramanwell, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.

It's more than a promise. VMware does it flawlessly. My concern with VPC is that MS will limit it to running only MS products. What would be cool is a Rosetta like product that executes Windows programs. This would eliminate the need to run Windows in a virtual environment.

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
It's more than a promise. VMware does it flawlessly. My concern with VPC is that MS will limit it to running only MS products. What would be cool is a Rosetta like product that executes Windows programs. This would eliminate the need to run Windows in a virtual environment.

well, VPC for PPC lets you run linux at this stage. it would be weird (or maybe not so weird!) for MS to suddenly change tact to force you to only run MS OSes -- but if VPC for macintel requires "a complete rewrite" then they could very well do it.

heh. i guess i meant that's the *promise* wrt. the intel macs. i've played around with vmware, it's quite slick and we do see software virtualization in action.

of course, the next step:

1. "hardware virtualization" -- intel and amd are starting to tout the benefits of this in future products, afaik no one has really demonstrated how hardware virtualization really works.

*Imagine if your Mac could run Os X AND Windows AND Linux. Play Mac games or PC games. Whenever, however you wanted. Open Microsoft Office documents. Exchange(pun intended) these documents with friends and coworkers. Seamlessly, transparently, efficiently. That would be the Mac that truly "freed" the Intel chip from its dull little tasks. A Mac that not only "just works", but OWNS too.

Originally posted by mike12309if your right, its still an OS in another OS. and its still $350, so yes i can summarize few would buy this for games. Now whether people who buy it for business will use it for games as well, thats a given, knowing business people.

The only people i know that spend 350 for a single component to help play games are people like me... and for an expensive video card for their PC.

I don't know. A lot of people buy it now, and that's without being able to play games.

Besides, PC games players buy these decked out AlienWare machines for over $3,000. I don't think that even $350 would faze them.

Which card is better, an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 or an ATI Radeon X800 Pro?

The X800 Pro is more powerful for sure... (if you're taking Desktop card.. not mobility)

Regarding the name "VirtualPC", just to be pedantic, will it still be the case? I mean, its not gonna be emulating anything... it'll (hopefully) just run it transparently. There is no actual Emulation needed anymore!

They just have to figure out how to be able to copy/paste stuff between the environments, share network connections, etc.. etc...

n'est-ce pas?

I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

Originally posted by aplnubAutoCad does not require that much processor power in 2d. I draw on a 19" flat panel that is more than adequate for our drawings.

One low power core would be plenty for me. Again, this isn't to draw on every day, just when I am out of town and a product drawing has to get done.

I don't recall you saying 2 or 3D. Sure, 2D isn't much of a cpu problem. I usually assume 3D these days. The only time I've used 2D the last four years was when I was remodeling my home, and was just doing floor plans. For other work, I seem to be always using 3D modules.

The Rez of the screen is still a killer. But if it's just for occasional work.. But 1024 x 768!!!

Originally posted by melgrossI don't recall you saying 2 or 3D. Sure, 2D isn't much of a cpu problem. I usually assume 3D these days. The only time I've used 2D the last four years was when I was remodeling my home, and was just doing floor plans. For other work, I seem to be always using 3D modules.

The Rez of the screen is still a killer. But if it's just for occasional work.. But 1024 x 768!!!

melgrossYou use it daily?

I didn't specify 2d or 3d. I rarely do 3d and hate to do it when I have too.

Zo I agree with you but I bet they keep the name the same. Stop dropping French bombs on me. I want to learn French so bad it is killing me!! Maybe another trip coming up in June. My wife heads back in March, again without me!

Originally posted by ZORegarding the name "VirtualPC", just to be pedantic, will it still be the case? I mean, its not gonna be emulating anything... it'll (hopefully) just run it transparently. There is no actual Emulation needed anymore!

Even the PC version of VirtualPC is called VirtualPC. They'd definitely keep the same name.

But I hope the Vanderpool virtualization technology in Yonah makes VirtualPC obsolete. I admit that I don't fully understand what's possible with it, but I'd hope that you could run Windows easily without the need for something like VirtualPC.

Originally posted by BRussellEven the PC version of VirtualPC is called VirtualPC. They'd definitely keep the same name.

But I hope the Vanderpool virtualization technology in Yonah makes VirtualPC obsolete. I admit that I don't fully understand what's possible with it, but I'd hope that you could run Windows easily without the need for something like VirtualPC.

I believe the OS has to support it. If not the OS, then some other software will be necessary. If the features are built-into the cpu, like, say, SSE, or Altivec, you need software support, or the features lie dormant.

I think that is this more to this issue than what has been discussed so far.

Yes. I agree with everyone that Microsoft is in to make money. A lot of money. But they are also in it to extend/continue the Windows monpoly.

Right now VPC is a novety. It doesn't totally suck, but isn't really that useful either. Microsoft doesn't mind making money off of a novety.

If rewritten VPC would allow Mac users to run Windows apps at near native speeds what benefit would it really be for Microsoft? It is not about the money. VPC would no longer be a novety but a useful tool for Mac users. This tool however, wouldn't extend the Windows monpoly, in fact Windows moves to a secondary OS behind Mac OS X.

In the past, Microsoft has done everything in its power to secure Windows as the primary default OS on computers. Coming in second really doesn't fit their business plan.

Hypothetically what would happen in 2-5 years if Apple decides to stop selling Apple branded hardware and license Mac OS X to every PC maker out there. Not only would a large number of PC makers install Mac OS X by default, but Microsoft would have provided a solution to allow all of those new Mac makers the ability to run their Windows OS and apps (without the hassles of dual-booting) as a secondary OS to Mac OS X.

I don't think we will see a rewritten VPC any time soon. Microsoft wants to see what Apple's future intentions are before releasing such a product.

Originally posted by Dave K.I think that is this more to this issue than what has been discussed so far.

Yes. I agree with everyone that Microsoft is in to make money. A lot of money. But they are also in it to extend/continue the Windows monpoly.

Right now VPC is a novety. It doesn't totally suck, but isn't really that useful either. Microsoft doesn't mind making money off of a novety.

If rewritten VPC would allow Mac users to run Windows apps at near native speeds what benefit would it really be for Microsoft? It is not about the money. VPC would no longer be a novety but a useful tool for Mac users. This tool however, wouldn't extend the Windows monpoly, in fact Windows moves to a secondary OS behind Mac OS X.

In the past, Microsoft has done everything in its power to secure Windows as the primary default OS on computers. Coming in second really doesn't fit their business plan.

Hypothetically what would happen in 2-5 years if Apple decides to stop selling Apple branded hardware and license Mac OS X to every PC maker out there. Not only would a large number of PC makers install Mac OS X by default, but Microsoft would have provided a solution to allow all of those new Mac makers the ability to run their Windows OS and apps (without the hassles of dual-booting) as a secondary OS to Mac OS X.

I don't think we will see a rewritten VPC any time soon. Microsoft wants to see what Apple's future intentions are before releasing such a product.

Thanks

Dave

I can't agree with that. If what you said were true, then there would have been no benefit to MS to have given Softwindows and VPC the status of "computer" for the purpose of allowing them to license first DOS, and then Windows. You do remember that both companies that had these programs were selling it themselves? Novelty or not.

MS has already stated, a couple of days after Macworld, that they would be happy to license Windows to Apple, if they wanted it, and that ANY computer running Windows was something that they would encourage.

While it's certainly true that they would prefer a machine to be running Windows exclusively, they are very happy to have it run as a secondary OS on a machine that would otherwise not be running it at all.

I'm sure the announcememt by Apple and Ms that they would cooperate to come up with a new version for the Intel based machines was real.

How can they possibly wait for Apple to show its intentions? If companies did that, nothing would ever get done!

If Apple does intend to release OS X on the PC world, it could happen two years from now, or five years from now. How long is MS supposed to wait?

Meanwhile they give up on several million possible sales of both VPC, Windows, and other software. It makes no business sense. I think that, contrary to what you are saying, MS has a vested interest in getting a new version out the door as soon as possible. They may have to wait for Leopard. If so, it will take some time. If not, we might see it by the fall.

Originally posted by strobeHow would you propose accessing such hardware?

Keep in mind OS X uses the pixel shader all the time. It would have to be done via OpenGL. I don't see how this is possible.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. There is no reason the OS (Vista) couldn't access the hardware directly. This is exactly what is being assumed it will do.

The frivers for the cards will reside within Vista. It will access the card as it needs it.

Remember that VPC has a full screen mode. There is no reason to believe that the new one won't either. So any problems you are assuming to be true won't be in that mode. Though I don't see why they would be anyway.

Originally posted by melgrossI'm not quite sure what you're saying here. There is no reason the OS (Vista) couldn't access the hardware directly. This is exactly what is being assumed it will do.

No reason? I just gave you the reason.

Quote:

The frivers for the cards will reside within Vista. It will access the card as it needs it.

Remember that VPC has a full screen mode. There is no reason to believe that the new one won't either. So any problems you are assuming to be true won't be in that mode. Though I don't see why they would be anyway.

Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.

Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.

No, that wasn't a good reason.

In fact, when Connectix still had this software, the reason they gave for not accessing the video hardware had nothing to do with that. Disabling the services wasn't considered to be the issue.